Posts

Fairfax & Favor v House of Bruar

Image
Falls of Bruar Author  Yomangan Licence Public domain Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Miss Recorder Michaels)  Fairfax & Favor Ltd and others v The House Of Bruar Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 689 (IPEC) (25 March 2022) In Design ,  I wrote: "In everyday language, the word “design“ may refer to an article’s functions as in the design of a circuit, reactor or website or to its appearance as in the design of a dress, garden or piece of furniture. Obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive since the aerodynamic lines of a sports car or the span of a bridge can be things of beauty as well as feats of engineering. The law protects both functional and ornamental desig n." I added that the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or any part of an article is protected from copying by a new intellectual property right known as “ design right”  and that new designs having individual character can be registered wi

Patents: Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Teva UK Ltd

Image
Author User:Jynto   Licence CCO 1.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Teva UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) (26 April 2022) This was an application by    Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd., the proprietor of  European patent (UK)  3,103,443 , and Flynn Pharma Limited, Neurim's exclusive licensee, for an interim injunction to restrain Teva UK Ltd. from disposing, offering for sale or disposal, selling or supplying any generic version of the claimants'  Circadin  product that falls within any of the claims of that patent or that has been manufactured by any process that falls within any of its claims until judgment or further order.  An interim injunction is a court order to do, stop doing or not to do something on pain of punishment for disobedience.  The approach by which a court decides whether or not to make such an order was set out by Lord Diplock in  American Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethico

Trade Marks - Monster Energy Company v Red Bull

Image
RED DAWG RED BULL Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Adam Johnson)  Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch) (12 Aug 2022) One of the grounds for opposing a trade mark is that it is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark that has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.  That raises the question of what constitutes "unfair advantage" of an earlier mark.  A case that sheds light on that issue is Mr Justice Adam Johnson's decision in  Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch) (12 Aug 2022), This was an appeal against Mr James Hopkin's decision in Re RED DAWG trade mark, Red Bull GmbH v Momster Energy Company  in BLO/636/21 of 26 Aug 2021 refusing registration of trade mark number 3497054 under s.5 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.  He set out his re

Jurisdiction to order Interim Injunctions before a Patent is granted - Novartis v Teva

Image
Author Amir.ahrls   Licence CCO 1.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Roth) Novartis AF and another v Reva UK Ltd and others   [2022] WLR(D) 306, [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch) Can an applicant for a patent or other intellectual property right seek an interim injunction to restrain an act that would infringe such right in the interval between the removal of the last objection to the granting of the right and the date of grant?  The right to damages for infringing acts is backdated to the publication of the application by s.69 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 but s.69 (2) (a) entitles an applicant to bring proceedings by virtue of this section in respect of any act only after the patent has been granted.  S.9 (3) (a) of the Trade Marks Act 1949  provides that no infringement proceedings may be begun before the date on which the trade mark is in fact registered.  S.7A (6) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 makes clear that no proceedings shall be taken in respect of an

Copyright - Photobooth Props Ltd v NEPBH Ltd

Image
Author Paste   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0     Soutce Wikimedia   Jane Lambert intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (John Kimbell QC)  Photobooth Props Ltd and another v NEPBH Ltd and others    [2022] EWHC 750 (IPEC) (1 April 2022) These were interlocutory applications by both claimants and defendants in an action for copyright infringement and rescission of a contract. The works alleged to have been infringed were artwork for the panels on the outside of photo booths known as "skins". The claimants claimed copyright in works that had been made by one Lie Xie, a director of the second claimant, whch were referred to as "the new works" and works in which copyright was said to have been assigned to the second claimant by the first defendant known as "the assigned works". The claimants applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24  of their copyright claim,  The defendants applied to strike out allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in support of the rescis

Account of Profits, Infringement of Registered Designs - Bei Yu Industrial Co v Nuby (UK) LLP

Image
  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Bei Yu Industrial Co v Nuby (UK) LLP   [2022] EWHC 652 (IPEC) (22 March 2022) This was an account of profits. In the Chancery Division which deals with most intellectual property claims infringement proceedings take place in two phases. There is a hearing known as a "trial" to determine whether the right has been infringed and by whom.  In the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or IPEC that takes place some 15 months or so after the issue of the claim form. If the claimant is successful at trial, the court usually orders the defendant to stop the infringement on pain of imprisonment or other punishment for disobedience.   If the successful claimant so wishes, the court will then decide how much money the defendant should pay him or her for the past infringement. Claimants have a choice.  They can request compensation for the loss or damage they may have sustained as a result of the infringemen

Patents - Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb

Image
  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Sandoz Ltd and another v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company  [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022) These were two separate actions for the revocation of a  European patent (UK)   1 427 415 B1 (“the patent”) .  The patent was held by Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company ("BMS") and the proceedings were brought by  Sandoz Limited (“Sandoz”) and   Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Teva”). BMS  counterclaimed against both claimants for infringement which was admitted subject to the validity of the patent. The actions came on for trial before Mr Justice Mrade between 31 Jan and 10 Feb 2022.  By para [257] of his judgment of 7 April 2022 he held that the patent was invalid for lack of plausibility and technical contribution (see Sandoz Ltd v  Bristol-Myers Squib Holdings Ireland (Unlimited) Company   [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat) (7 April 2022)). The Patent The patent was granted for "